AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 5 November 2025

Matthews v R

[2025] NSWCCA 175

Assault & violenceTraffic & drivingPublic order & justice offences
CRIME APPEALS APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GUILTY PLEA APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE NO POINT OF PRINCIPLE

Citation: Matthews v R [2025] NSWCCA 175
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 5 November 2025
Judges: Ball JA, N Adams J, Sweeney J (Sweeney J delivering the principal judgment)

Background

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to two offences arising from a single incident on 2 December 2023 in Gladesville: failing to stop and driving dangerously while knowing police were in pursuit, and assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. A further offence of resisting a police officer was taken into account on a Form 1 (a procedural mechanism allowing related offences to be considered at sentencing without a separate conviction).

The facts were serious. The applicant drove erratically on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic before crashing. After the crash, he reversed into a police car door, injuring one officer, then drove forward onto a footpath, narrowly missing a pedestrian. He then resisted arrest with considerable force, ultimately pushing one officer in the throat. That officer fell to the ground, struggled to breathe and was hospitalised. Both officers were treated in hospital and prescribed pain relief.

Judge Culver in the District Court imposed an aggregate sentence of 28 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 months. The sentence was backdated and accumulated by 12 months on the balance of a parole period the applicant was already serving at the time of sentencing. He sought leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

  • Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the totality principle when imposing the aggregate sentence, including accumulation on the balance of parole
  • Whether the sentencing judge failed to give effect to her finding of "special circumstances" (which allows a court to extend the parole portion of a sentence beyond the standard proportion)
  • Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive

Decision

Ground 1, concerning a causal connection between the applicant's mental illness and his offending, was abandoned at the hearing. Counsel accepted that Judge Culver had found such a connection. The sentencing judge had taken the applicant's mental ill health into account in several ways: reducing the objective gravity of both offences, reducing the emphasis on general and specific deterrence, and finding that his difficult history reduced his moral culpability.

On totality and special circumstances, counsel for the applicant conceded that no specific identifiable error could be found in Judge Culver's approach. The argument advanced was that the applicant's mental illness made extended supervision in the community desirable, warranting a longer parole period. The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected this, noting that the applicant was on parole for a serious offence against a police officer at the time of the current offending, had a history of resistance to mental health treatment, related drug abuse, and prior violent offending. The court was not persuaded the overall sentence was disproportionate, unreasonable, or plainly unjust.

On manifest excess, the Court applied the well-established principle from House v The King that appellate courts do not intervene merely because they might have reached a different result. The applicant faced a "very heavy practical burden" to show a degree of disproportion so manifest as to indicate substantive legal error, not merely a difference of opinion. That burden was not discharged.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • Abandoning a ground of appeal at hearing is significant: counsel for the applicant conceded before the Court of Criminal Appeal that the sentencing judge had found a causal connection between the applicant's mental illness and his offending, removing the foundation for Ground 1.
  • A finding of "special circumstances" does not automatically produce a particular non-parole period outcome. The sentencing court retains a broad discretion and the overall sentence must remain proportionate to the totality of the offending.
  • Under the totality principle, a court sentencing a person who is already serving a sentence must ensure the overall sentence is just and appropriate to the total offending conduct; accumulation on a balance of parole is permissible where the circumstances warrant it.
  • No error was established in the sentencing judge's approach to totality, even where an applicant points to a desirable penological goal (such as extended community supervision). Without an identifiable error, the appellate court will not intervene.
  • In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal reaffirmed that the threshold for manifest excess is high: the disproportion must be apparent on the face of the sentence as indicating substantive legal error, not merely a different discretionary assessment.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 51B(1), 60(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 10A
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166

Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Edquist-Wheeler v R [2024] NSWCCA 49
- GP v R [2017] NSWCCA 200
- Hardey v R [2019] NSWCCA 310
- House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
- Huang v R [2019] NSWCCA 144
- Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; (2004) 78 ALJR 616
- Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70
- Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
- TH v R [2025] NSWCCA 121
- Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14